Sure it can because they’re incredibly lazy. They might put Wi-Fi seven on it, but that’s about it.
They’re all about least amount of financial impact in the most amount of financial reward because Tim Cook is not a product guy.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Vision Pro 2 With M5 Chip May Not Launch Until 2026
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
They’re all about least amount of financial impact in the most amount of financial reward because Tim Cook is not a product guy.
It’s okay. More time to save up for it.
Oh good, a new version of a thing nobody needs or wants.
I already have the $0 saved that I'm willing to spend on it. Waiting anxiously.
Apple will never let macOS run on a new class of devices, due to $$$ from apps and services. They’d get rid of it completely if they could.
At some point I'll pick up a Quest 3 for $400-500. While it won't integrate seamlessly into Apple's ecosystem, at 1/7th or less the price point, and a fairly decent device for my uses, I have no need to spend what Apple is charging on a product it will rarely update. Take off the awful looking front eyes screen and make a $999 version and I could justify paying the Apple tax for top to bottom integration. Short of that, I'll pass.
The iPad 1 didn’t have any superfluous features.
If it had had a second display on the back showing a creepy rendering of your eyes, maybe they’d have removed that.
FOV was the big disappointment when I had a go in the Apple shop. I thought it would be much wider.
I might also, but only because I have a use case for it (Golf+ game that works with a club attachment)
Hear that Apple?
An actual use case that is driving interest in the product
The product will be discontinued then. No one really needs it.
IF it were possible to slash cost that way... it sounds great but there are big technical limitations.
The Vision Pro uses a lot of compute power that a Mac can't replicate, namely:
1. The R1 chip for real time low-latency passthrough, foveation and eye tracking - that needs to be done on a real time chip and couldn't work with something that uses a standard CPU architecture, even less something that is down a wire on a computer with other tasks that compete
2. The neural engines of the M2 are doing huge amounts of work recognising objects, performing hand occlusion etc. Again, something that would be very tricky and have a negative impact on a connected Mac
Finally, I can attest to how much it's essential for the Apple Vision Pro to be untethered. Even when I plug the battery into a charger, I find myself occasionally walking off and nearly pulling the thing off my head because the passthrough illusion is so good. I don't fancy pulling my Mac with me!
Apple, historically, has never been about gaming. If you are waiting for that, then you are wasting time. Go buy a Meta Game machine. You'll have a lot more fun playing pretend golf than moaning about Apple not giving you pretend golf.
Apple needs controllers so they can add VR gaming as a use case. I would guess it’s the primary use case on other headsets. Hell just enabling apps like Steamlink would be huge. I’m not meaning to replace the existing hand / eye tracking, but just to kick in when the VP goes into Game Mode and starts looking for them. Then you get a lot of new apps to hold people over while Apple figures out its use cases for the product.
Same with EVs. The shine is long gone. Tech has great deal of maturing to do before it has broad appeal.
What significant difference will the 2nm process bring to the M6, making you regret Apple’s potential use of the M5 in the next AVP?
It bothers me that it’s called “Pro” but only had Mx, not Mx Pro.
I assume the differentiator between Vision and Vision Peo will be all the other features, not processing power.
I assume the differentiator between Vision and Vision Peo will be all the other features, not processing power.
Here, I'll fix your sentence for you:
They’re all about